God was behind Big Bang, pope says

Originally posted by journey2010
I have always asked: Why can't science and religion get along?

It's because religion gets all threatening if and when you might happen to disagree with them and their beliefs. They say stuff like you're gonna
get your head chopped off or be sent to hell for eternity if you don't subscribe to their version of blah blah blah. Until they remove those threats
from their dogma, there will be no getting along with them. In fact, don't turn your backs to them, else they might start another crusade to burn
and kill the truth. They're just interested in beliefs, not the truth, it's why there are so many different religions and their conflicting versions
of god dogma.

So, I now ask, why can't all those 4000+ religions not get along with each other? Why are there so many religions with so many different/conflicting
versions of their contrived beliefs? Maybe religion needs to learn to get together first before trying to get together with the scientists. Once
religion is reduced to one, and they have learned to stop with their nasty offensive threats, maybe then science can get along with religion. Maybe?

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." --POPE LEO XIII
(Then again...Satan said this too... I will be like the most High." LUCIFER, ISAIAH 14:14) coincidence???

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF
(POPE)." --POPE BONIFACE VIII

"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not
explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!" Pope Leo X, 1516

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which NO ONE at all is saved. -Pope Innocent III

So we can easily and safely assume with no biased at all based on the facts presented that whatever the popes say, can be equal in authority to the
words of Donald Duck or Micky Mouse.

Goose bumps. What role do those play? I'd say there are a few rare people for which they play a role, but those are only the overly hairy
individuals, not the vast majority. Goose bumps are vestiges of our past.

(I posted something similar to my post below in another thread, thought I should post
it here as well)

Scientists are aware through predominantly that of empiricism, that our universe has a large number of cosmological constants, which if slightly off
by a fraction, would result in us not existing.

It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have
been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that
there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse. Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate
and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is
that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by pure chance.

The problem with the multiverse is that it is not based on empiricism/knowledge, because we simply don’t know what lies beyond our own universe, or
indeed, even if there are, any other universes. What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical
knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of
course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again, neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.

(I posted something similar to my post below in another thread, thought I should post
it here as well)

Scientists are aware through predominantly that of empiricism, that our universe has a large number of cosmological constants, which if slightly off
by a fraction, would result in us not existing.

Yet scientists have no clue if those constants could even possibly have other values. There is also the fact that the universe would seemingly be able
to chug on as is without the weak force of the universe, one of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity).

It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have
been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that
there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

No, it is based on assumption. We are unable to determine whether or not those numbers have any other possible values, so any leap based upon the
values of those numbers is merely assumption.

One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse.

Yes, one of many unproven hypotheses with regards to theoretical cosmology.

Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless
and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by
pure chance.

Or possibly all universes have the exact same fundamental physical constants, thus they all formed into stable universes. We don't have to appeal to
the multiverse to say that the 'fine tuning' argument for a creator is a bit silly.

The problem with the multiverse is that it is not based on empiricism/knowledge, because we simply don’t know what lies beyond our own universe, or
indeed, even if there are, any other universes.

Indeed, I actually agree with you here. It is currently a hypothesis, so only scientific inquiry will tell, probably with the next couple of decades,
whether or not the concept is near the truth.

Of course, I also cut this paragraph off here to highlight something, we only have one sample. We have no way of knowing of other possible value for
constants due to this fact, and to leap to the conclusion that these constants were finally tuned would be to make the same mistake as those who
appeal solely to the multiverse.

What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so
many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again,
neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.

Actually, the idea of the multiverse is falsifiable. It is within the realm of scientific investigation and is currently going through
scientific inquiry. Of course, it is only one hypothesis amongst many.

The conceptions of deities, on the other hand, vary. Some are unfalsifiable. Some might be. But that is a separate issue and something for another
thread.

Given that the pope has no scientific knowledge (or evidence for that matter) that would qualify him to make such a claim...his entire statement as
well as this thread are a bit useless. It's as if Michael Jordan made comments regarding astrophysics. Insanity...especially given that we live in
the 21st century!

It's the same with that Jenny McCarthy, the play boy model. The amount of drivel she talks about vaccines being evil when she obviously has no say in
the matter what-so-ever because she doesn't know what she's talking about

Any type of person that makes assumptions is truly ignorant. There is nothing wrong with making a guess and being wrong...but to assume you know
everything and then teach it to the rest of the world as fact will always be a crime that separates humanity.

Science and religion alike. Until they find physical proof of a God or the origin on the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe more than the other.

Any type of person that makes assumptions is truly ignorant. There is nothing wrong with making a guess and being wrong...but to assume you know
everything and then teach it to the rest of the world as fact will always be a crime that separates humanity.

Science and religion alike. Until they find physical proof of a God or the origin on the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe more than the other.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Given that the pope has no scientific knowledge ...

He doesn't need to, because he has a staff of science advisors. I am very surprised that you don't already know that!
Vicky

You mean the same science advisors that took 150 years to accept a theory the rest of the scientific community has long accepted before them? The same
advisors that were hellbent to stating the earth is flat even after it came out they were wrong? And what makes you so sure those "advisors" are not
biased or that their statements even get heard/accepted?

Originally posted by fusionhunter
Well from my point of view we where made by someone or something. All our body features play a roll.

I've lived most of my life with no tonsils, no gall bladder and no appendix.
The absence of these has benefitted my health.
So how can you say, "all our body features play a roll" (sic)?
Or does playing a role in causing illness qualify?

Originally posted by Ben81
There is always a balance ...
we see more salt water covering earth yes .. but there is at least 70% of dirt
the rest of the planet is water

what about Mars now

Please define dirt and explain how you came up with that figure.

What about Mars?

Perhaps if it had a more hospitable environment intelligent animals would have evolved there too. Perhaps it was once more hospitable and intelligent
creatures did live there until some disaster caused it to become total desert. Perhaps our existance here is a matter of luck and we will one day have
the bad luck to be wiped out too. Or perhaps abiogenesis and evolution are bound to eventually result in the existance of intelligent life on any
suitably hospitable celestial body.

edit on 10/1/11 by Kailassa because: edited because of a lack of intelligent life in front of my computer.

Apt that you have a bug/parasite as your avatar. Thats what people like you are to this world. Parasitic.

If you have ever studied mysticism you would look at the matter differently. If you approach it with a moral relatvism, or positivism, youre not gonna
get anywhere outside your basic egotistical assumptions.

This world IS intelligently designed because simply put, it appears that way. No need to conflct or confuse the scenario by concentrating on
peripheral matters like reductionist logic. It is what it is. We are creations studying the principals of G-d and thats the type of attitude that most
of histories greatest scientists have had; Isaac Newton for instance derived his knowledge from the mathematical basis of the Torah (in Hebrew,
letters are also numbers).

Its funny that people like you worship chance. I really dont think it a coincidence that the Hebrew word for 'luck' (or chance) is Gad - which has
the gematria of 7. Gad is very similar to the German Gott, and English God.

I think were learning something about the pagan foundation of western culture with that correspondence. Although to you, it appears to be accidental.

What you just did is called "STATING A BELIEF". You're making fun of the other guy for demanding evidence and logic/rationality to back up
creationist claims, think about that. You aren't even providing evidence to back up your claims, you rather choose to pick on the guy simply because
he refuses to blindly believe like you...

That's not only very ignorant, but also kinda sad. You're so brainwashed, you refuse to even look at facts, and get angry if others insist on
accepting facts or looking at evidence.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.